© Nicole Craine for The New York Times
© Gabriela Bhaskar/The New York Times
A judge in New Mexico ordered Meta Platforms META.O on Wednesday to pay the state $25 billion after a jury found the company had misled consumers about the privacy of their data, hitting the company with one of the largest financial penalties in US history.
The ruling came in a case stemming from allegations that Cambridge Analytica, a British political consulting firm involved in Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, obtained data from millions of Facebook users without their consent. New Mexico had sued Meta, accusing it of lying to Facebook users in New Mexico about who had access to their data.
“Facebook’s wrongdoing — over the course of years and systematically broadcast to the public — goes to the heart of Facebook’s core business practices,” Judge Francis Mathew wrote in his order, which came more than three weeks after the verdict.
Mathew found that a penalty of more than $219 billion was warranted based on state law, but he reduced the figure to $25 billion.
In a statement, C.J. Mahoney, Meta’s chief legal officer, said the company is confident it will win on appeal.
“This ruling, and the Attorney General’s approach to this enforcement, makes it all but impossible to do business in the state of New Mexico,” Mahoney said. “At its core, this lawsuit seeks to impose a tax on speech to enforce new rules for what people can say online.”
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez said in a statement after the ruling the penalty was one of the largest financial penalties against a corporation in US history.
Meta previously faced a $5 billion penalty from the US Federal Trade Commission in 2019 over the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Six other states settled their lawsuits against Meta related to Cambridge Analytica for $459.2 million as part of a $17.1 billion multistate settlement the company reached in August to resolve states’ claims that the company’s platforms had harmed teen mental health.
New Mexico’s attorney general sued Meta in 2021 following revelations that Cambridge Analytica had harvested personal data from as many as 87 million Facebook users through a third-party app.
The state accused Meta of lying to Facebook users in New Mexico about who had access to their data and its handling of hate speech and misinformation posted on the platform. It alleged the company knew third parties had broad access to users’ data and tolerated hate speech or other harmful content when it benefited the company’s bottom line.
Cambridge Analytica, now defunct, used the data for voter profiling and targeting.
“It has been a long time coming holding Big Tech accountable,” Torrez told a press conference in Albuquerque after Wednesday’s ruling. “I think today’s judgment is a clear break with that past and a very clear warning to those in this space and beyond that we intend to protect our people and protect our consumers.”
Mathew’s decision comes as Meta faces thousands of lawsuits and pressure from lawmakers over the impact of Instagram and Facebook on teen mental health, with another trial slated to begin next week.
Earlier this year, New Mexico won $942 million in a pair oftrials against Meta over claims it facilitated sexual exploitation of young people on Instagram and Facebook and misled consumers about the platforms’ safety.
Analyst Gil Luria, head of technology research at D.A. Davidson & Co, called the latest New Mexico ruling costly but unlikely to impact the company’s value.
“Meta is worth nearly two trillion dollars, and will likely continue to appeal these cases and drag them out,” Luria said.
Jurors in September had found that the company and its leadership made 26 misleading statements on data privacy, hate speech and other subjects. Multiplying those statements by their potential audience, they said the company had committed more than 43 million violations of New Mexico’s consumer protection laws.
At a hearing on October 1, Randi McGinn, a lawyer for New Mexico, had asked Mathew to award the state between $35 billion and $40 billion.
“This court should speak to Meta in the only language it understands, which is money, and the value of its stock price,” McGinn said.
In court filings, Meta urged Mathew to cap the penalties at $3.45 billion. The evidence showed that Meta does not sell user data and New Mexico did not prove that any consumer had actually been misled, the company said in court filings.
© Victor Llorente for The New York Times
© Scott Ball for The New York Times
© Gabriela Bhaskar/The New York Times
“Non serve necessariamente una regia esterna”. Così Walter Quattrociocchi, professore ordinario alla Sapienza di Roma e direttore del Center of Data Science and Complexity for Society (CDCS), risponde ad Affaritaliani sulla possibilità che le proteste e i disordini possano essere sfruttati da Stati stranieri nell’ambito di operazioni di guerra ibrida.
“Per parlare di guerra ibrida servono evidenze di un coordinamento intenzionale riconducibile ad attori esterni”, spiega il professore, sottolineando come le mobilitazioni possano essere il risultato di dinamiche spontanee: “Le proteste, anche quando degenerano, possono essere spiegate da dinamiche di contagio sociale che si sviluppano lungo linee identitarie”.
A favorire questi processi sono anche i meccanismi cognitivi e le interazioni tra persone con idee simili: “Le persone tendono a cercare conferme alle proprie convinzioni, il cosiddetto confirmation bias, e a interagire con chi condivide le loro posizioni. È così che si formano le echo chamber, ambienti nei quali determinate narrazioni si rafforzano reciprocamente”.
Anche i social network possono essere utilizzati per tentare di destabilizzare un Paese, ma individuare una manipolazione non significa dimostrare che abbia prodotto effetti concreti: “Certamente esistono tentativi di manipolazione attraverso i social, ma tentare un’operazione di influenza e riuscire a orientare concretamente i comportamenti sono due cose molto diverse”, osserva Quattrociocchi.
Le piattaforme, infatti, sono caratterizzate da dinamiche difficili da controllare, che possono favorire la diffusione di contenuti divisivi: “Gli algoritmi di raccomandazione, guidati da modelli di business fondati sull’attenzione, possono amplificare contenuti divisivi indipendentemente dalle intenzioni di chi li produce”. Per questo, avverte il professore, “dimostrare una regia esterna richiede quindi prove di coordinamento e attribuzione, non semplicemente contenuti virali”.
Sul fronte delle possibili contromisure, la priorità è comprendere i meccanismi attraverso cui si diffondono le informazioni e si consolidano le narrazioni online. “Prima ancora di cercare nemici esterni, dobbiamo comprendere il funzionamento ordinario delle piattaforme. Servono accesso ai dati, ricerca indipendente e trasparenza degli algoritmi per distinguere operazioni coordinate da fenomeni spontanei di contagio sociale”, sottolinea Quattrociocchi.
La soluzione, però, non deve tradursi in restrizioni dei diritti fondamentali: “La risposta non può essere limitare la libertà di espressione o il diritto di manifestare”. Il punto, conclude il professore, è capire “come identità collettive, bias cognitivi e incentivi economici delle piattaforme possano trasformare tensioni preesistenti in fenomeni di mobilitazione e polarizzazione, anche senza alcun intervento straniero”.
L'articolo Proteste a Milano, l’esperto: “Attacchi hacker o regia straniera? Spesso è solo contagio sociale” proviene da Affaritaliani.it.
The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire's (LPNH) X account—which has become infamous for its bigoted and controversy-ridden posts—is finally gone. But the state's spurious role in its banning raises free speech concerns.
Last week, New Hampshire Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte sent a letter to X's safety team, asking the company to suspend the account. Ayotte's letter made mention of several clear violations of X's content policies: "This account has openly called for the assassination of elected officials from the New Hampshire Democratic Party, has said it condones murdering elected officials for their policy positions, and most recently threatened a member of House leadership.…I'm calling on X to remove [the posts] and suspend the account immediately."
The letter referenced one particularly bold post from September (which the account later deleted). The post read: "We openly support the assassination of basically every elected democrat in New Hampshire. But if you don't have the balls to do it, then you should probably vote GOP."
X suspended the account the day after Ayotte sent the letter.
The removal of the LPNH account has likely elicited a sigh of relief from the Libertarian Party's (L.P.) leadership, which has repeatedly tussled with LPNH over its extreme rhetoric, undermining of L.P. candidates, and constant creation of P.R. crises for the party. In 2024, the LPNH endorsed Donald Trump for president instead of Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver, pushing the Libertarian National Committee to disaffiliate LPNH from the L.P.'s structure this past May. The Granite State Libertarian Party was designated the state's new L.P. affiliate in September.
Even though the LPNH has clearly violated X's terms and does not adhere to the most basic requirements for L.P. membership (such as pledging to uphold the nonaggression principle), the government should not tell private firms when to enforce their own policies. This sentiment was shared by Granite State L.P., which recently said in a social media post, "While a private company has a right to remove someone screaming about setting people on fire…the government should play zero part in that decision."
Jeremy Kauffman, the chair of the LPNH, is outraged but unsurprised, posting on Sunday that he and the LPNH are "exploring a lawsuit against the New Hampshire government." He tells Reason, "Ayotte's letter was a classic example of jawboning. When a governor sends a demanding letter like this to a private company, there is a clear implicit threat attached."
Speaking to Reason, Trace Mitchell, a technology and free speech expert at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, defines jawboning as, "when the government, through veiled threats or direct coercion, pressures a private entity to take an action that the government could not lawfully take or mandate itself."
In Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot make recommendations to private companies if those recommendations come with legal repercussions—even implied or veiled repercussions. Doing so would qualify as jawboning, which violates the First Amendment. Though Ayotte's letter could be construed as extralegal pressure, it does not imply a punishment for noncompliance and likely falls short of legally recognized jawboning.
Addressing Kauffman's proposed lawsuit, Mitchell says, "In this case he would likely have to show there is something beyond this letter…[like] outside communications, emails or text with X."
Safety officers at X provided no comment to Reason to justify the suspension. It is not clear whether there was any external communication involved beyond the letter. Without a more definite connection between Ayotte's request and X's decision, Kauffman may struggle to win in court. Still, that doesn't make the governor's request any less concerning.
While Ayotte's letter was a surprise, it was not unprecedented. As social media has become the public forum, all levels of government have tried to regulate what is said there. During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal officials under the Biden administration were revealed to be in near-constant communication with major social media firms, encouraging and recommending that misinformation be removed from the platforms. Many of these recommendations were paired with implied threats to review the firms' legal immunity for content posted on their platforms, which spawned a lawsuit that reached the Supreme Court in 2024.
Although the Court dismissed the case for lack of standing, some lawmakers have taken action to address concerns over jawboning, with Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) introducing the JAWBONE Act in June. The bill would make it easier for members of the public to sue government officials who pressure media networks, as well as require increased transparency for all federal communications to media networks.
Even if Kauffman cannot find legal remit, Ayotte's letter was a troubling move for the future of internet speech. Many of the offending posts referenced were months old or had been deleted before the letter was sent. The LPNH has likely been violating X's content policy for years, but X only took action after the government instructed it to.
You don't need a judge to see how that might be concerning.
The post X Bans Former Libertarian Party Affiliate—After the State Requests It appeared first on Reason Magazine.
© Aly Song/Reuters
© Aly Song/Reuters
L’uso precoce dei social media ha un’influenza negativa sui risultati scolastici. Introdurre l’educazione alla cittadinanza digitale nelle scuole e iniziative rivolte ai genitori aiutano a contrastare il fenomeno, ma serve una regolazione più stringente.
L'articolo Social media, cattivi maestri proviene da Lavoce.info.
Hundreds of Brazilians protested outside Meta’s São Paulo offices on Monday, accusing the technology giant of restricting the reach of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s campaign while boosting far-right candidate Flávio Bolsonaro, six days before the presidential runoff. The demonstration coincided with a court order giving Meta 24 hours to prove it was treating both campaigns equally.
RELATED: Brazilian Court Gives Meta 24 Hours to Prove Equal Treatment of Presidential Campaigns
The protest on Faria Lima Avenue called for an end to what demonstrators described as the suppression of progressive political content. Organizers also demanded transparency in content moderation algorithms, protections for activists and journalists, and compensation for damage to public debate.
The Superior Electoral Court (TSE) imposed the 24-hour deadline amid mounting scrutiny of Meta’s handling of the campaigns. The dispute intensified after internal messages emerged in which company employees acknowledged that Lula’s account had faced restrictions compared with Bolsonaro’s. The messages indicated that Lula’s Instagram posts could not be promoted for nearly 24 hours between Oct. 9 and 10.
“META NO SE META!”
— Nacho Lemus (@LemusteleSUR) October 19, 2026
Movimientos brasileños ocupan la sede de la plataforma de redes sociales. pic.twitter.com/wetfUpEryA
Text Reads: “META DON’T GET INVOLVED!” Brazilian movements occupy the headquarters of the social media platform.
TSE Justice Marco Aurélio Bellizze warned that appeals would not suspend the court’s orders and doubled the daily fine for noncompliance from 500,000 reais to 1 million reais, or about $180,000.
The court also ordered Meta to submit individual reports in Portuguese, explain its recommendation algorithms, provide details on electoral advertising oversight, and identify potential networks of fake accounts and AI-generated images.
“Unilaterally replacing deadlines set by the court amounts to noncompliance, particularly in a process whose effectiveness depends on time,” Bellizze said.
Meta maintains that its content moderation policies apply equally to all political actors. Bolsonaro has also sought to join the proceedings, arguing that his own content has been harmed.
Protesters argued that the dispute exposed the broader influence of social media platforms over Brazil’s electoral process. They noted that 70% of the Brazilian population uses Instagram to obtain information and accused Meta, owned by Mark Zuckerberg, of wielding opaque power over political visibility.
“We cannot say we have fair elections when a company uses its economic, technical and technological power to tilt public debate toward one side, which is what is happening,” said Dani Silva, executive director of Ctrl+Z, one of the organizations behind the demonstration.
The rally was organized by the Não se Meta coalition, which included the Landless Workers’ Movement (MST), Levantamento da Juventude Popular, Brasil Popular, Article 19, Ctrl+Z, Código No Binário, Diracom, the National Forum for the Democratization of Communication and Sleeping Giants Brazil.
Under the slogan “Meta, stay out of our election,” demonstrators displayed signs featuring Zuckerberg alongside U.S. President Donald Trump and chanted for digital sovereignty and Meta’s exclusion from the electoral process.
Activist Veronyka Gimenes, known as Trava Hacker, described the company’s actions as part of what she called “digital colonialism,” alleging that technology companies seek to influence domestic politics across the Global South.
“Digital sovereignty is no joke; it is something that must be taken very seriously,” she said.
Activist Tiana Cauton urged people to take to the streets to demand the democratization of communications. She also expressed hope that a new presidential term would advance “autonomy through our own open and clean social networks.”
Demonstrators said Meta’s influence over political communication had undermined Brazil’s national sovereignty since the 2018 elections, renewing calls for greater accountability for social media platforms during the electoral process.
Login